Occasional Paper No. 12May 1999
Economics DepartmentMonetary Authority of Singapore
The Term Structure of Interest Rates,Inflationary Expectations and
Economic Activity:Some Recent US Evidence
THE TERM STRUCTURE OF INTEREST RATES,INFLATIONARY EXPECTATIONS AND
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY:SOME RECENT US EVIDENCE
BY
FINANCIAL & SPECIAL STUDIES DIVISION*ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT
MONETARY AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE
MAY 1999
* THE VIEWS IN THIS PAPER ARE SOLELY THOSE OF THE STAFF OF THEFINANCIAL & SPECIAL STUDIES DIVISION, AND SHOULD NOT BEATTRIBUTED TO THE MONETARY AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE
THE MONETARY AUTHORITY OF SINGAPORE
JEL CLASSIFICATION NUMBER: E31, E37, E44
THE TERM STRUCTURE OF INTEREST RATES,INFLATIONARY EXPECTATIONS AND
ECONOMIC ACTIVITY:SOME RECENT US EVIDENCE
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i-ii
1. INTRODUCTION 1
2. THE TERM STRUCTURE OF INTEREST RATES, ECONOMICACTIVITY AND INFLATIONARY EXPECTATIONS
2
3. THE YIELD SPREAD AS A PREDICTOR OF FUTURE INFLATION 4
4. THE YIELD SPREAD AS A PREDICTOR OF ECONOMIC GROWTHAND RECESSION
10
Figure 1 : Treasury Yield Curve Before and After Rate Cuts 1
Figure 2 : Scatter Plots of Realised Inflation Change AgainstCurrent Yield Spread
8
Figure 3 : Estimates of the Probability of a Recession 13
Table 1 : Estimates of Inflation Change Equations 7
Table 2 : The Relationship Between β,σ and ρ 9
Table 3 : Estimates of Real GDP Growth Equations 11
Table 4 : Estimates of Probit Model of the Probability of aRecession
13
References 15
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1 Short-term interest rates are typically expected to fall as an economy
slows down and heads toward a recession. In response to comments that a
negative-sloping yield curve for US Treasury securities is the harbinger of deflation in
the US economy, this paper assesses the reliability of the yield curve in providing
information about future inflation and economic activity.
2 Our analysis indicates that the positive relationship between yield
spreads on Treasury securities of different maturities and future changes in inflation
becomes more evident, as the difference in maturities increases. The strength of
this relationship may be expressed as a function of the variations of the expected
change in inflation and the ex ante real interest rate spread. We find that as we
move along the Treasury yield curve, variations in expected inflation changes
become large relative to variations in the real interest rate spread, so that inflation
becomes the dominant factor driving the returns on Treasury securities. In other
words, the relationship between the yield spread and future changes in inflation
becomes stronger.
3 Next, we evaluate the effectiveness of the nominal term structure in
predicting growth in real GDP. Our findings indicate that while yield spreads
calculated using different segments of the yield curve are all statistically significant,
the yield spread between three- and one-year Treasury bills provides the maximum
predictive power of growth over the next one and two years. For a given segment of
the yield curve, the forecasting power of the spread diminishes as the forecast
horizon increases.
4 We also use the nominal term structure to forecast the probability of a
recession. The results show that yield spreads from various segments of the yield
curve are significant predictors of recessions four quarters ahead for the period
1960Q1 to 1998Q3. However, the forecasting power of our equation diminishes
substantially when it is used to forecast the probability of a recession eight quarters
ahead. Plots of the estimated probabilities show that they are relatively higher in
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
ii
recession quarters than in non-recession quarters, although there a false alarm was
generated in the early 1980s.
5 Based on our model estimates and the yield spread between three-
and one-year Treasury bills, the probability of a recession in the next four quarters
fell from 29% on 31 Aug 98 (before the rate cuts instituted by the Federal Reserve)
to 27% on 4 Jan 99 (after the rate cuts) and 17% on 15 Mar 99. Furthermore, the
positive yield spread between three- and one-year Treasury bills on 15 Mar 99
suggests that real GDP will grow by 3.0% over the next four quarters. This
compares favourably with 1999 growth of 3.3% projected by Consensus Forecasts
on 8 Mar 99.
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
1
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Before the series of cuts in the Federal funds rate by the
Federal Reserve, analysts and market commentators have often cited the
negative-sloping Treasury bond yield curve up to two years as one of the
indicators that the US economy was heading towards a deflationary
condition. However, following interest rate cuts of 25 basis points each on
29 Sep 98, 15 Oct 98 and 17 Nov 98 (totalling 75 basis points), the yield
curve has become flatter. (See Figure 1.) This paper assesses the reliability
of the yield curve in assimilating information about future inflation and
economic activity, and in predicting the probability of a recession.
Figure 1Treasury Yield Curve Before and After Rate Cuts
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
(%)
15-Yr
20-Yr
30-Yr
2-Yr
10-Yr
7-Yr
3-mth
8-Yr
6-mth
1-Yr
3-Yr
4-Yr
5-Yr
6-Yr
9-Yr
18 Nov 98
(After Rate Cuts Totalling 75bp)
31 Aug 98
15 Mar 99
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
2
2 THE TERM STRUCTURE OF INTEREST RATES,ECONOMIC ACTIVITY AND INFLATIONARYEXPECTATIONS
2.1 The theoretical foundation of the yield curve as a predictor of
real economic activity and future inflationary conditions is grounded in the
expectation theory of the term structure. According to the expectation
theory, an n-period nominal interest rate at time t should be equated to the
expected nominal return on a one-period investment, rolled over n times,
plus a certain term premium:
(1 + Rt(n))n = θt
n + ∏−
=
++1
)1( )1(n
oi
ittrE (1)
where Rt(n) is the n-period interest rate and rt
(1) is the one-period interest rate,
Et is the conditional expectation formed at time t, and θt is the time-varying
term premium. Linearising, we have (approximately):
∑−
=
+++≈1
1
)1()1(
)(n
i
ittt
nn
t rEn
r
nR
θ(2)
2.2 If the one-period interest rate is expected to increase in the
future, (i.e. Etrt+j(1) > Etrt+j-1
(1) for all j), then the current long rate for maturity
n, Rt(n), will rise above the current one-period rate, rt
(1). The yield curve will
then be upward-sloping since Rt(n) > Rt
(n-1) > … > rt(1). Even if the short-
term rate is expected to remain constant, the yield curve would slope upward
since the holders of longer-term securities would require a positive term
premium to compensate them for the risk of capital loss in the event that
future interest rates are higher than expected. The empirical evidence so
far, however, has indicated that changes in the term premium are rather
small compared to the shifts in the market expectation about future short-
term rates in accounting for the changes in the slope of the yield curve.
[Fama (1984)]
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
3
2.3 As the economy slows down, perhaps into a recession, short-
term interest rates typically decline. According to the expectations theory,
the longer-term rates should fall in order to equalise expected future holding
period returns. How the yields of bonds of different maturities will actually
respond will depend on market expectations about the time path of future
short rates during the maturity periods of the securities. The short-term rates
can be expected to decline as the economy heads toward a recession and
exhibits deflationary conditions. This occurs for two reasons. First, the
monetary policy is anticipated to loosen as measures are designed to
stimulate the economy. Second, independent of the anticipated stance of
future monetary policy, the lower future short-term rates could reflect the
market expectation of low real returns during the period of economic
contraction.
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
4
3 THE YIELD SPREAD AS A PREDICTOR OF FUTUREINFLATION
3.1 The theoretical framework that links the existing nominal yield
curve spread with the future path of inflation is based on the Fisher
relationship and the rational expectations version of the term structure of
interest rates.
3.2 The Fisher equation states that the nominal interest rate on an
m-period bond equals the ex ante m-period real interest rate and the
expected inflation over the m holding period:
itm = rrt
m + Et πtm (3)
where itm is the m-period nominal interest rate at time t, rrt
m is the ex ante
real interest rate at time t, πtm is the inflation rate from t to (t+m), and Et
denotes the expectations at time t. Actual inflation over the m periods is:
πtm = Et πt
m + εtm (4)
where εtm is the forecast error over the m periods. If expectations are
rational, the forecast error would have zero mean, be serially uncorrelated
and orthogonal to any relevant information known at time t. Substituting (4)
into (3) yields:
πtm = it
m - rrtm + εt
m (5)
3.3 To obtain an expression on the relationship between the
spread in the term structure of interest rates and future inflation, we subtract
equation (5) from a similarly-specified n-period inflation equation (where m >
n) to yield:
πtm - πt
n = itm - it
n - rrtm + rrt
n + εtm - εt
n (6)
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
5
3.4 Following Mishkin (1990a, 1990b), we assume that the slope of
the real interest rate is constant. This allows us to specify the following
regression:
πtm - πt
n = αm,n + βm,n (itm - it
n) + µt (7)
Note that the dependent variable represents the difference between the m-
period inflation from time t to (t+m) and the n-period inflation from t to (t+n).
For example, for m = 2 years and n = 1 year, the regression seeks to
determine the extent to which the current 2-year interest rate less the current
1-year interest rate is a good predictor of the average inflation rate over one
year, one year from now. A value of βm,n that is statistically different from
zero indicates that the slope of the interest rate yield curve and the size of its
spread provides information about the direction of the future path of inflation.
A value of βm,n that is not statistically different from one implies that nominal
yield spread movements mirror only changes in inflationary expectations
rather than changes in the term structure of real interest rates. This can be
seen from equation (8), which is simply derived by subtracting (itm - it
n) from
both sides of equation (7) and multiplying through by -1.
rrtm - rrt
n = - αm,n + [1 - βm,n] (itm - it
n) - µt (8)
A value of βm,n that is not statistically different from one indicates that the
nominal yield curve reflects fully the information about future changes in
inflation; and therefore, the nominal yield curve is unrelated to the real term
structure.
3.5 Ordinary least squares (OLS) provides a consistent estimate of
βm,n if rational expectations holds. Under rational expectations, the forecast
errors, µt, would be orthogonal to the regressor (itm - it
n). However, the OLS
standard errors would be biased as a result of serial correlation in the
regression error term. Serial correlation arises since we are employing
monthly data to estimate regressions over longer inflation forecast horizons.
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
6
With monthly data, the regression error terms are likely to follow a moving-
average process of order (12m - 1). We resolve this problem by using the
Newey-West (1987) procedure to obtain consistent covariance matrices.
The correlated standard errors will in general lead to correct inference
asymptotically.
3.6 We estimated the inflation change equation (7) using month-
average constant maturity yield data for the United States from the CEIC
Database, where available, from April 1953 to October 1998. To evaluate
the information content along a broad segment of the term structure of
nominal interest rates, we employ yield data for maturities stretching from 3
months (US Treasury bills) to 5 years (Treasury bonds). The inflation data is
calculated from the urban CPI series. Table 1 presents the results of our
estimates for different m and n horizons.
3.7 The estimates indicate that the shorter end of the nominal term
structure contains no information about the future movement of inflation.
The coefficient of the (6 - 3) month Treasury bill spread is not statistically
different from zero, implying that changes in the nominal yield spread at this
maturity spectrum of the yield curve mainly reflects changes in the term
structure of real interest rates. The coefficient of the (12 - 6) month Treasury
bill spread is almost one, although it is not significant at the conventional
level. As we move further up the yield curve, the statistical significance of
the βm,n coefficient increases. In addition, along these segments of the yield
curve, the null hypothesis that βm,n = 1 cannot generally be rejected, thereby
indicating that changes in the term structure relationship reflect mainly
changes in inflationary expectations. Our findings here are consistent with
the results obtained by Mishkin (1990a, 1990b) and Jorion and Mishkin
(1991), for the US and other industrial countries. The results indicate that
changes in the term structure at maturities over a year reflect mainly
changes in bond market expectations about the future course of inflation.
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
7
Table 1Estimates of Inflation Change Equations
m, n SamplePeriod
αm,n βm,n R2 t-test:βm,n = 1
Months6,3 1982:1 - -0.021 0.002 0.00 3.131
1998:3 (0.148) (0.564) [0.078][0.889] [0.998]
12,6 1982:1 - -0.289 0.945 0.04 0.0071997:9 (0.222) (0.667) [0.934]
[0.194] [0.158]
Years2,1 1976:6 - -0.261 0.828 0.11 0.408
1996:9 (0.191) (0.269) [0.523][0.174] [0.002]
3,1 1953:4 - -0.249 1.444 0.23 3.2831995:9 (0.151) (0.245) [0.071]
[0.100] [0.000]
5,1 1953:4 - -0.120 1.395 0.24 1.6741993:9 (0.238) (0.305) [0.196]
[0.614] [0.000]
Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors corrected according to the Newey-Westprocedure. Figures in square brackets are p-values.
3.8 Graphically, the relationship between the maturity structure of
the yield spread and future changes in inflation can be seen from the scatter
plots in Figure 2. As the maturity increases, the positive relationship
between the spread and the corresponding realised future inflation becomes
more evident.
3.9 The ability of the longer-term maturity yield spread to forecast
future changes in inflation relative to the shorter-term maturity spread can be
explained in terms of the expression for βm,n. [Fama (1984), Mishkin (1990)]:
βm,n = ρσσ
ρσσ21 2
2
+++
(9)
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
8
where σ = σ [Et (πtm - πt
n)] / σ [rrtm - rrt
n] = ratio of the standard deviation of
the expected inflation change to the standard deviation of the real term
structure, and ρ is the correlation between the expected inflation change
Et(πtm - πt
n) and the spread of the real term structure, (rrtm - rrt
n).
Figure 2Scatter Plots of Realised Inflation Change Against Current Yield Spread
(5 - 1) Years
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3
(3 - 1) Years
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
(2 - 1) Years
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
-1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5
(12 - 6) Months
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
3.10 From (9), the βm,n coefficient is small when the variability of
expected inflation change is small relative to the variability of the slope of the
real term structure. In Table 2, we present our estimates of σ and ρ for six
pairs of m and n. To obtain an estimate of σ, we need first to determine the
expected inflation change. Following Mishkin (1990), we regressed the ex
post real interest rate spread, nm
rrrr − , against the current and four lags of
the nominal yield spread, im - in, and four lags of the inflation change, πm - πn.
The fitted values of the regression are taken to represent the ex ante real
interest rate spread, rrm - rrn. We then subtract the fitted value from the
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
9
nominal interest rate spread to obtain estimates of expected inflation rate
change. The procedure is repeated for all (m – n) period combinations.
3.11 As Table 2 indicates, at the shorter end of the maturity
spectrum, the variance of the expected change in inflation is smaller than the
variance of the ex ante real interest rate spread. As we move along the yield
curve, the variance of the expected inflation change becomes large relative
to the variance of the real interest rate spread. Hence, as expected, inflation
becomes the dominant factor in driving the returns on holding bonds relative
to the real interest rate, the value of βm,n rises.
Table 2The Relationship Between ββ, σσ, and ρρ
m, n Sample Period ρ σ2 βm,n
6,3 months 1982:1 - 1998:3 -0.977 0.975 0.002
12,6 months 1982:1 - 1997:9 -0.964 1.065 0.945
2,1 years 1976:6 - 1996:9 -0.919 1.149 0.828
3,1 years 1953:4 - 1995:4 -0.879 1.296 1.444
5,1 years 1953:4 - 1993:9 -0.802 1.309 1.395
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
10
4 THE YIELD SPREAD AS A PREDICTOR OF ECONOMICGROWTH AND RECESSION
4.1 In this section, we evaluate the effectiveness of the nominal
term structure in predicting growth in real GDP and in forecasting the
probability of an economic recession.
4.2 We estimate the following regression to evaluate the power of
the yield spread to predict cumulative growth in real GDP for different
forecast horizons:
(400/k) [(Yt+k-Yt) / Yt] = λ0 + λ1 (im - in)t + et (10)
where Yt is the quarterly real GDP. We set the forecast horizon, k, to four
and eight quarters ahead. The data we use is the seasonally-adjusted GDP
series at 1992 prices obtained from the CEIC Database.
4.3 The regression results are presented in Table 3. While the
spreads at different segments of the term structure are all statistically
significant, it is the spread between the three- and one-year maturities that
provides the maximum predictive power of growth over the next one and two
years. For a given segment of the term structure, the forecasting power of
the spread diminishes as the forecast horizon increases. The latter finding is
consistent with the results obtained by Estrella and Hardouvelis (1991),
Bonser-Neal and Morley (1997), and Haubrich and Dombrosky (1996) for the
US. Similar findings for other industrial economies were obtained by Estrella
and Mishkin (1997), Kozicki (1997), and Bonser-Neal and Morley (1997).
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
11
Table 3Estimates of Real GDP Growth Equations
k = 4 quarters k = 8 quartersm, n(years) λ1
2R λ1
2R
3, 1 2.047 0.208 1.546 0.203(0.518) (0.376)[0.000] [0.000]
5, 1 1.405 0.195 1.026 0.178(0.419) (0.310)[0.001] [0.001]
10, 1 1.055 0.190 0.725 0.159(0.336) (0.242)[0.002] [0.003]
Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors, while those in square brackets arep-values.
4.4 Next, we examine the ability of the term structure spread to
predict the onset of a recession using a probit model described in Estrella
and Mishkin (1998). In the probit model, the dependent dummy variable, Rt,
takes a value of 1 if the economy is in recession in period t and 0 otherwise.
We write:
Prob (Rt = 1) = φ [S0 + S1 (im - in)t-k] + µt (11)
where φ(.) is the standard normal cumulative density function. The model is
then used to forecast the probability of a recession at time t, on the basis of
the observed yield curve at time (t – k). The dating of the recession quarters
are taken from Artis et al (1995), which were shown by the authors to have
similar turning points to the NBER dates.
4.5 We estimated equation (11) using quarterly data from 1960Q1
to 1998Q3. The results are reported in Table 4. The estimates are obtained
by setting k = 4 and 8 quarters respectively. The results show that the yield
spreads, at different segments of the term structure, are significant
predictors of recessions four quarters ahead. The statistical significance of
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
12
the spread weakens considerably when it is used to forecast the probability
of a recession eight quarters ahead. Similarly, the McFadden R2 shows that
the forecasting power of the equation declined substantially when it is used
to forecast the probability of a recession eight quarters ahead when
compared to forecasting the recession probability four quarters ahead.1
4.6 Figure 3 shows our estimates of the probability that the US
economy will be in recession in a given quarter on the basis of the observed
spread between the three- and one-year Treasury bond yields observed four
and eight quarters earlier. Ideally, the probability should be 0 for non-
recession quarters and should be 1 in the recession quarters. The recession
quarters are shaded in Figure 3. In general, the estimated probabilities in
the recession quarters are relatively higher than the probabilities in the non-
recession quarters. The estimated probabilities are particularly high for the
recession quarters 1974Q2-1975Q3 and 1984Q1-1984Q3. On the other
hand, the estimated probabilities of the most recent recession quarters of
1989Q2- 1991Q1 are somewhat low. Note also the false alarm generated
by the high estimated probabilities between the two recession periods during
the early 1980s.
4.7 As indicated by the results presented in Table 4, the estimated
probability of a recession based on the yield spread eight quarters earlier is
less precise, and the values of the estimated probabilities during the
recession quarters are much lower than the estimates obtained from the
yield spread four quarters earlier.
1 The McFadden R2 is computed as
e
l~
1 −, where l is the log-likelihood of the
estimated model and e~ is the restricted log-likelihood of the model estimated withonly the constant term.
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
13
Figure 3Estimates of the Probability of a Recession
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Mar-
60
Mar-
64
Mar-
68
Mar-
72
Mar-
76
Mar-
80
Mar-
84
Mar-
88
Mar-
92
Mar-
96
k = 4 quarters k = 8 quarters
Table 4Estimates of Probit Model of the Probability of a Recession
m,n k = 4 quarters k = 8 quarters
(years) S0 S1 Mc R2 S0 S1 Mc R2
3, 1 -0.625 -1.232 0.206 -0.769 -0.374 0.023(0.138) (0.246) (0.139) (0.211)[0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.075]
5,1 -0.600 -0.989 0.231 -0.758 -0.281 0.025(0.140) (0.193) (0.141) (0.153)[0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.067]
10,1 -0.605 -0.763 0.226 -0.775 -0.191 0.019(0.139) (0.152) (0.141) (0.118)[0.000] [0.000] [0.000] [0.104]
Note: Figures in parentheses are standard errors, while those in square brackets are p-values. Mc R2 is the McFadden R-squared.
4.8 Finally, we generate the forecasts for changes in GDP and the
probability of a recession four quarters ahead on the basis of the slope of the
yield curve that was observed on 31 Aug 98, before the Federal Reserve
initiated the three rounds of interest rate cuts totalling 75bp, and on
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
14
4 Jan 99 and 15 Mar 99. On the basis of the yield spread between three-
and one-year Treasury securities of -0.13% on 31 Aug 98, our model
forecasts real GDP growth of 2.2% over the following four quarters. The
probability of a recession during the period is found to be 32%. After the
series of Fed fund rate cuts, the entire term structure for US government
securities shifted downward. The yield spread between three- and one-year
Treasury securities narrowed to -0.02% on 4 Jan 99. On the basis of a
narrower yield spread, our model forecasts growth over the next four
quarters to be 2.4%. The probability of a recession during the next one year
fell to 27%.
4.9 More recently, the yield curve has shifted upwards, while the
yield spread between three- and one-year Treasury securities has become
positive. Based on the (3 - 1) year yield spread of 0.28% on 15 Mar 99, the
model forecasts GDP growth of 3.0% and a 17% probability of a recession
over the next four quarters, suggesting an improved economic outlook for
the US. This growth forecast compares favourably with the projections of
private sector economists. The 8 Mar 99 publication of Consensus
Forecasts projected US growth to be 3.3% in 1999.
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
15
REFERENCES
Artis, M.I., Z.G. Kontolemis and D.R. Osborn. 1995. “Classical Business
Cycles for G7 and European Countries”, CEPR Discussion Paper 1137.
Bosner-Neal, C. and T.R. Morley. 1997. “Does the Yield Spread Predict
Real Economic Activity? A Multicountry Analysis”, Federal Reserve Bank of
Kansas City Economic Review, 82:37-53.
Estrella, A. and F.S. Mishkin. 1998. “Predicting U.S. Recessions: Financial
Variables as Leading Indicators”, Review of Economics and Statistics, 80:46-
61.
Estrella, A. and G. Hardouvelis. 1991. “The Term Structure as a Predictor
of Real Economic Activity”, Journal of Finance, 46:555-576.
Fama, E.F. 1984. “Forward and Spot Exchange Rates”, Journal of
Monetary Economics, 14:319-338.
Fama, E.F. 1990. “Term Structure Forecasts of Interest Rates, Inflation and
Real Returns”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 25:59-76.
Haubrich, J.G. and A.M. Dombrosky. 1996. “Predicting Real Growth Using
the Yield Curve”, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland Economic Review, 26-
35.
Jorion, P. and F.S. Mishkin. 1991. “A Multicountry Comparison of Term
Structure Forecasts at Long Horizons”, Journal of Financial Economics,
29:59-80.
Kozicki, S. 1997. “Predicting Real Growth and Inflation with the Yield
Spread”, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, 82:39-57.
MAS Occasional Paper No. 12, May 99
Economics Department, Monetary Authority of Singapore
16
Mishkin, F.S. 1990. “What Does the Term Structure Tell Us About Future
Inflation?”, Journal of Monetary Economics, 25:77-95.
Mishkin, F.S. 1990. “The Information in the Longer Maturity Term Structure
About Future Inflation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 55:815-828.
Mishkin, F.S. 1991. “A Multi-country Study of the Information in the Term
Structure About Future Inflation”, Journal of International Money and
Finance, 19:2-22.
Newey, W.K. and K.D. West. 1987. “A Simple Positive Definite,
Heteroscedasticity, and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix”,
Econometrica, 55:703-708.
MAS OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES*
Number Title Date
1 Current Account Deficits in the ASEAN-3: Is There Cause for Concern?
May 1997
2 Quality of Employment Growth in Singapore: 1983-96
Oct 1997
3 Whither the Renminbi? Dec 1997
4 Growth in Singapore's Export Markets, 1991-96: A Shift-Share Analysis
Feb 1998
5 Singapore’s Services Sector in Perspective: Trends and Outlook
May 1998
6 What lies behind Singapore’s Real Exchange Rate? An Empirical Analysis of the Purchasing Power Parity Hypothesis
May 1998
7 Singapore’s Trade Linkages, 1992-96: Trends and Implications
Aug 1998
8 Impact of the Asian Crisis on China: An Assessment
Oct 1998
9 Export Competition Among Asian NIEs, 1991-96: An Assessment
Oct 1998
10 Measures of Core Inflation for Singapore Dec 1998
* All MAS Occasional Papers in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format can be downloaded at the MASWebsite at http://www.mas.gov.sg.
Number Title Date
11 Capital Account and Exchange Rate Management in a Surplus Economy: The Case of Singapore
Feb 1999
12 The Term Structure of Interest Rates, Inflationary Expectations and Economic Activity: Some Recent US Evidence
May 1999
Top Related